U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-06-2009, 10:20 PM
 
846 posts, read 1,115,435 times
Reputation: 274

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom99 View Post
And no, employers currently do not have the right to fire an employee for any reason (you can't fire an employee for being black).
I never could figure this one out. Why would an employer fire someone that is black?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume said employer knew the person was black when they hired them.

 
Old 06-06-2009, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Monroe, Louisiana
887 posts, read 2,613,023 times
Reputation: 529
I don't believe in discrimation lawsuits and affirmative action. Everyone should be on a level playing ground.
 
Old 06-06-2009, 11:14 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,506 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrotrosie View Post
What?? Everyone gets a fair shake...as stated in the Constitution. The laws are applied equally. So, how do you apply a harsher death penalty? What is harsher than death? I don't get it.

Do you not believe that mis-application of rules (and ill conceived rules) leads to ill feelings and continuation of said discrimantory practices and feelings? (eg. I can't stand it that black/gay/ whatever protected class person got that job over me...they aren't more qualified, it's the stupid mandatory quotas the government has mandated...I hate blacks...) In fact, that black candidate may or may not have been more qualified,...the other applicants have no way of knowing, but they do know there are laws mandating zero tolerance for discrimination and that if a black person does not get a job, they may sue... I am just stating a hypothetical example here. Not a real situation. How does this address and correct rather than propogate a sociological ill? I don't believe it does.

There are certain groups in this Country that do a great job of 'class warfare' and cover and diguise it as race, gay, gender, etc to garner large voting groups for themselves. They promote tolerance for every group, unless you are not like them, in which case, they have no tolerance for you.

If there were a homosexual business owner, and he wanted to strictly hire homosexuals, would that be OK?

And, just for the record...I would hire a person of ANY race, color, creed, sexual orientation, so long as they were the most qualified for the job and presented and spoke well, and had an appropriate appearance for the job. I have friends of all walks of life....I don't discriminate there at all! All of God's children have something to share with us in this life, and I don't plan on missing out on any of their Joys!
i think you should read again what I wrote and get back to me - i'm talking about sociological problems in a society, not legalities. It is about education not punishment!!!!!
 
Old 06-06-2009, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,506 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrotrosie View Post
, they have no tolerance for you.

If there were a homosexual business owner, and he wanted to strictly hire homosexuals, would that be OK?

!
Nope that is not Ok - it is a human rights issue and heterosexuals deserve protection under human rights as other groups...

Put this way-

If a Homosexual owner of a barbershop hired 3 men and all of them were gay - he would have to hire them based on the fact they were most qualified for the job... He would have to state that. IF the homosexual barbershop owner hired 3 gays because they were gay... that is a case for discrimation if a candidate who was straight but more qualified didn't get the job on the basis that he was not gay.

Society has a responsibility to protect groups from discrimination - not ALL groups but there are groups that DO deserve protection...
 
Old 06-06-2009, 11:34 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
Nope that is not Ok - it is a human rights issue and heterosexuals deserve protection under human rights as other groups...

Put this way-

If a Homosexual owner of a barbershop hired 3 men and all of them were gay - he would have to hire them based on the fact they were most qualified for the job... He would have to state that. IF the homosexual barbershop owner hired 3 gays because they were gay... that is a case for discrimation if a candidate who was straight but more qualified didn't get the job on the basis that he was not gay.

..
What if the barbershop owner wanted to specialize in the homosexual clientele, by designing his shop to be attractive to them and to cater to them? You are saying he would have no right to give job preference to homosexual employees?

What if someone wants to publish a newspaper or magazine that specializes in issues concerning African Americans and life and culture in the African American community. He has to hire qualified white applicants?
 
Old 06-07-2009, 07:00 AM
 
Location: Oviedo, Fl formerly from the Philly Burbs!
1,012 posts, read 2,356,692 times
Reputation: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
i think you should read again what I wrote and get back to me - i'm talking about sociological problems in a society, not legalities. It is about education not punishment!!!!!
So, you would 'track' what information that is not to be used legally in any sense and use it in what form of education? I did not indicate the information should not be noted, just that the crime should not be elevated...perhaps you did not read my post?

The information gathered, eg. "the straight group of teens battered the gay individual" , should be used as evidence as an aggravating circumstance. That is commonplace in our judicial system in determining a sentence for all crimes. So, you are still tracking the information you want.

If I am still not understanding, perhaps you could explain further? I am certain not to be the only one , you post was brief.
 
Old 06-07-2009, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,179 posts, read 9,115,151 times
Reputation: 9523
People discriminate in all sorts of ways, when it comes to spending their money, either as an employer or as a citizen. If you are renting a house and a couple comes to look at it, driving an old beater full of screaming children, would you rent to him over the quiet couple in the nice SUV with a well-behaved child? No matter what the truth is - that couple #2 actually engages in mutual and child abuse, and live on credit cards, and couple #1 pay their bills on time in cash and their kids are involved in cleaning the house and yard - first impressions are important. A homeowner might actually rent to a gay couple if he thinks (erroneously) that all gays are interior designers and will keep the apartment/property clean and neat, even add to its value. (Some of my gay friends WERE clean and neat and tidy, others were atrocious slobs!)

The same with employers - do you employ the person with the excellent work history and references, only to find out that s/he is a binge alcoholic whose previous employers shuttled her/him along so as not to suffer any lawsuits from firing someone with a 'treatable disease'? Or would an employer hire a gay individual because she shows up in steel-toed boots and jeans, totally prepared for the heavy labor required, instead of the same daintily-coiffed individual in spike heels and a dress?

People spend their money on first impressions; usually it isn't until later that they find out they were either bamboozled or gratified. I don't see a thing wrong with hiring or firing someone based on their abilities or work output - what I do see as wrong is hiring or firing someone because of EEO regulations, only to end up with someone who can't do the job as required. Gays, or any gender or any race who uses their sexual proclivities and/or their race as an excuse to NOT do the work they contracted to do, or to sue claiming "discrimination!" when they were fired because they refused to do the work required, is wrong. I won't kick someone to the curb because of what they ARE, but because of what they DO - or, don't do. I don't care if a woman wants to be a firefighter or a cop - but she had danged well better not insist that the men around her do her job for her, or endlessly 'save' her. Same with gays - I don't care if they want to be a meat-packer or an office assistant - but they had danged well better be able to do the job and not try to foist off on others what they don't want to do, then use their sexual proclivity as an excuse.

I am opposed to the BS hype of "hate crimes" as well. Attacking ANYone, taking away their right to go where they choose and physically harming them, is a heinous crime and should not be excused or watered down in a court of law. To add 5 years on a 'hate crime' charge to me means that they should have gotten an extra 5 years anyway, no matter who their victim was. This to me waters down the whole judiciary system - you mean it's more ok for five straight guys to beat up another straight guy, no matter what the excuse, than it is for those same guys to beat up a gay guy? I'm sure that whomever their victim is really appreciates knowing that his life is worth less than the gay's life - and this sort of exaggeration only encourages more discrimination, not less.
 
Old 06-07-2009, 08:54 AM
 
Location: nc
1,244 posts, read 2,449,537 times
Reputation: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGranny View Post
I am opposed to the BS hype of "hate crimes" as well. Attacking ANYone, taking away their right to go where they choose and physically harming them, is a heinous crime and should not be excused or watered down in a court of law. To add 5 years on a 'hate crime' charge to me means that they should have gotten an extra 5 years anyway, no matter who their victim was. This to me waters down the whole judiciary system - you mean it's more ok for five straight guys to beat up another straight guy, no matter what the excuse, than it is for those same guys to beat up a gay guy? I'm sure that whomever their victim is really appreciates knowing that his life is worth less than the gay's life - and this sort of exaggeration only encourages more discrimination, not less.
I don't agree with you on the issue of hate crimes because I think it sends a much stronger message to the general public. Motive always plays a pretty big part in the criminal justice system. That did make me think of the fact that isn't it weird that a crime of passion arouses more sympathy from juries? It seems like an oxymoron...I loved them so much, that's what made me more prone to attack when I caught him/her cheating on me.
 
Old 06-07-2009, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Oviedo, Fl formerly from the Philly Burbs!
1,012 posts, read 2,356,692 times
Reputation: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb64282 View Post
I don't agree with you on the issue of hate crimes because I think it sends a much stronger message to the general public. Motive always plays a pretty big part in the criminal justice system. That did make me think of the fact that isn't it weird that a crime of passion arouses more sympathy from juries? It seems like an oxymoron...I loved them so much, that's what made me more prone to attack when I caught him/her cheating on me.
Exactly, Motive always plays a part....it is called aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances. That is what determines a harsher or lesser sentence....the MOTIVE...not the victim. The victims should get justice applied EQUALLY as required by the Constitution. It is the Criminal that requires examination of motives and application of sentencing.

Nothing sends a message more than confusing and ambiguous variegated laws....."hey...if I get in front of that jury and claim X, then I get a lesser sentence...so I will state that because if I state otherwise the pentalty is harsher" If there are Hate crimes..no one is going to indicate...Hey I killed that guy cause he was gay...add five years, or execute me twice(cause I am not sure how you have a harsher death penalty)

Crimes of passion usually get lesser sentences due to the mitigating factor that they are not premeditated. Not due to the fact that people have more sympathy but because the LAW indicates lesser sentences for crimes with no premeditation, and harsher sentences for crimes WITH premeditation (mitigating and aggravating circumstances..again)
 
Old 06-07-2009, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Maine
898 posts, read 1,194,234 times
Reputation: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
Nope that is not Ok - it is a human rights issue ...
What about the rights of the individual doing the hiring? What happened to free association? I reiterate. My property, my business who I hire and fire, and any individual property owner has the divine right to have the final say over who is allowed on his property, whether that property be his place of residence or business. Nobody has the right to be on someone else's property. You come to my land, I can kick you off for whatever reason I wish. Not saying discrimination is right, I'm saying that private property rights trump EVERYTHING else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top